As the authors of the focal article (Voss et al., Reference Voss, Stoffregen, Couture, DiGirolamo, Furman, Haidar, Hammer, Lee, Maneotis, McCloy, Olson and Spector2025) aptly point out, peer-reviewed journal articles often offer vague or minimal practical implications for organizations and, instead, regularly expend effort to make a compelling case for impactful theoretical implications (see Pillutla & Thau, Reference Pillutla and Thau2013). As has been lamented anecdotally by many industrial and organizational psychology (I-O) psychologists, the premiere journals in organizational psychology and management have increasingly emphasized the importance of theoretical contributions and advancements in the articles they choose to publish, and the publication of validation studies or replication studies in such venues is now either rare or nonexistent. Such a stance encourages researchers to pursue projects that emphasize research novelty in their designs. Although research should undoubtedly promote the generation of new knowledge, and we acknowledge that novel ideas are one good way of achieving that aim, this approach can underplay and even ignore tried and true approaches to solving organizational problems that many organizations would find beneficial (Grote & Cortina, Reference Grote and Cortina2018; Mathieu, Reference Mathieu2016). For the purposes of this commentary, we define research novelty as research that is “new or unusual” for the field. In what follows, we offer several reasons for why the emphasis on novelty in peer-reviewed journal articles can undermine the quality of research collaborations with practitioners and psychological science more broadly.
Gone are the articles from the late 20th century where researchers covered detailed methodological steps for solving commonplace organizational problems such as performance evaluation (e.g., Latham et al., Reference Latham, Fay and Saari1979) or personnel selection methods (e.g., Campion et al., Reference Campion, Palmer and Campion1998; Motowidlo et al., Reference Motowidlo, Dunnette and Carter1990). Instead, many premier journals have gone on to publish flashy, novel findings that are either implausible or counterintuitive based on current science. This emphasis on novelty has fueled what is known as the replication crisis in psychology (Open Science Collaboration, 2015), resulting in study findings that are rarely reproducible, calling into question the veracity of the published findings. This issue has been exacerbated by high profile cases of researchers allegedly fabricating data or findings in pursuit of the fame and success that accompanies being the originator of a novel phenomenon published in a top journal (e.g., Francesca Gino, Diederik Stapel, among others). To combat this type of research misconduct in the field of psychological science, new efforts to improve transparency and research auditing have arisen, such as the open science movement and the Many Co-Authors Project, aiming to restore credibility to psychological science.
The paradox of research novelty
As a scientist–practitioner field, the pursuit of research novelty presents a critical paradox. On the one hand, novelty is essential to address the rapidly changing work environment and the unprecedented challenges it presents (Campion et al., Reference Campion, Campion and Campion2018; Landers, Reference Landers and Landers2019; White et al., Reference White, Ravid, Siderits and Behrend2022). The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, catalyzed a dramatic shift to remote work, forcing researchers to explore new paradigms for employee engagement, performance management, and collaboration. Similarly, advancements in large language models have opened new opportunities to study the intersection of artificial intelligence and work, such as using AI for recruitment, training, and organizational communication (Asfahani, Reference Asfahani2022). Novel research has also been demonstrated to have a disproportionately large contribution to science (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Veugelers and Stephan2017). These developments highlight the necessity of innovative research to keep pace with the evolving workplace and advance the field at large.
On the other hand, an overemphasis on producing novel research risks generating excessive noise, making it challenging for practitioners to discern the most valuable insights. Whereas academic audiences may reward groundbreaking discoveries, organizations often prioritize iterative, context-specific research that has a higher likelihood of successful implementation (Armenakis & Harris, Reference Armenakis and Harris2009; Geimer et al., Reference Geimer, Landers and Solberg2020). For example, instead of overhauling their entire talent management system, a company might focus on enhancing their current employee development programs by introducing targeted training modules for high-potential employees, aligning them with immediate business objectives and workforce gaps.
This tension is further compounded by the phenomenon of construct proliferation, as documented by Anvari et al., (2024) in their examination of psychology’s fragmented landscape. The field has seen an exponential growth in constructs and measures, many of which are conceptually overlapping or redundant (Banks et al., Reference Banks, Gooty, Ross, Williams and Harrington2018; Le et al., Reference Le, Schmidt, Harter and Lauver2010). Although this explosion of constructs reflects the desire for novelty, it also creates confusion for both researchers and practitioners, as there is a lack of a shared understanding of constructs (Le et al., Reference Le, Schmidt, Harter and Lauver2010). Without some form of consensus, it becomes increasingly complex to understand and apply findings in both practice and research settings.
Complicating this issue further is the previously mentioned replication crisis in psychology. This crisis undermines trust in research findings and amplifies the difficulty practitioners face in identifying reliable evidence to inform their decisions (Keener et al., Reference Keener, Kepes and Torka2023). In I-O psychology, where applied research has direct implications for organizational success, the lack of replicability threatens the field’s credibility and utility. Addressing this challenge requires a shift toward prioritizing reproducibility and actionable outcomes alongside novelty.
Broader consequences for research collaboration
The academic emphasis on research novelty often conflicts with practitioners' need for practical solutions to organizational challenges, which are often context-specific issues in the workplace. In contrast, academics driven by tenure and funding pressures that prioritize publications and citations may focus on producing groundbreaking research rather than addressing immediate organizational concerns. Although not always necessary, developing context-specific research offers significant benefits. The context-specific approach may provide a more accurate measurement of the construct, ensures the findings are highly relevant to the organization, and can help improve predictive validity for the specific context. Although such research might appear incremental, it adds valuable knowledge to the literature by addressing real-world problems that often go unnoticed in broader studies. More importantly from the practitioners’ perspective, such research helps to optimize outcomes for the target organization.
Unfortunately, academics may overlook the potential benefits of this approach in pursuit of novelty. Emphasis on novelty can discourage partnerships with practitioners, as the goals of both sides are not properly aligned. Whereas academics may be more interested in creating something innovative, practitioners are more concerned with actionable solutions that are immediate and cost effective, such as retraining or assigning new personnel to address turnover. These solutions may not always be novel, but they may be necessary for resolving real-world issues. This tension between the desire for novel findings and the need for practical solutions can affect practitioners’ willingness to collaborate, as they may perceive the value of academic research as disconnected from their immediate organizational needs.
The missed opportunity of not partnering with practitioners lies in the insights they can offer regarding the current challenges organizations face. Practitioners can shed light on what strategies have been effective in the past, which are no longer working, and how new workplace trends are influencing organizational needs. Without this input, academic research risks becoming disconnected from real-world applications, leading to studies that may overlook critical variables or fail to account for extraneous factors affecting outcomes. Additionally, not engaging with practitioners means missing the chance to ensure research is applicable and feasible for organizations to implement, ultimately reducing the relevance and impact of academic findings.
Proposing solutions
Current research’s emphasis on novelty and positive results in high-impact journals (Teplitskiy et al., Reference Teplitskiy, Peng, Blasco and Lakhani2022) often discourages collaborative applied research and replication, limiting progress in addressing workplace challenges. In I-O psychology, this has resulted in an overvaluation of theoretical extensions at the expense of rigorously testing and applying established theories to practical workplace settings. This situation raises an important question: Does theory always need to be revised or extended? What if theory is “merely” supported? We argue that research that supports existing frameworks, identifies limitations in organizational contexts, or demonstrates practical applications should be equally prioritized (Rynes et al., Reference Rynes, Bartunek and Daft2001). Such work directly addresses the challenges faced by organizations.
To foster a more balanced research agenda, journals should embrace a new emphasis on studies with clear practical applications. Author guidelines should highlight the value of testing and refining existing theories, replicating findings, and addressing tangible workplace issues. When evaluating papers, reviewers should consider the practical contributions, and editors should actively seek manuscripts with actionable insights for practitioners (Open Science Collaboration, 2015) as well as prioritize research that accomplishes the latter while also collaborating. Involving diverse stakeholders, such as practitioners, employees, and managers, in the review process can further ensure that research is meaningful and impactful in real-world settings.
One promising innovation is the "peer-replication" model, as proposed by Lord et al. (Reference Lord, Charles-Orszag, Skruber, Mullins and Rehfeld2023). This approach tasks reviewers with replicating key aspects of studies or suggesting practical applications. By allowing independent researchers to replicate experiments before publication, this model helps to address the reproducibility crisis. It also benefits all stakeholders: Replicators gain citable publications, original authors receive validation, and journals enhance the reliability of their contributions. For practitioners, this model provides a platform to assess the applicability of theories and identify areas needing further exploration. Adopting such innovations allows peer review to better align with the field’s evolving needs, fostering research that delivers actionable solutions for organizations and individuals.
Journals should also establish dedicated sections for applied research, collaborative studies, and replication efforts. While the Journal of Applied Psychology initially emphasized practical applications, its shift toward theoretical development (Kozlowski et al., Reference Kozlowski, Chen and Salas2017) has diminished its practitioner-oriented focus. Dedicated spaces for applied and iterative research would create platforms for valuable studies that may not meet traditional novelty criteria. For instance, a "replication series," as seen in Spatial Economic Analysis (Ditzen & Elhorst, Reference Ditzen and Elhorst2022), could encourage studies that validate and build upon existing findings, promoting a cumulative understanding of workplace phenomena.
Other journals in our field that have pushed back against the overemphasis on research novelty and published incremental research with real-world relevance include the Journal of Business and Psychology and Organizational. To support journals such as these and advocate for change in peer-reviewed publications, researchers can actively work to cite incremental research to increase its visibility. In addition, public and private advocacy for the importance of incremental and practical research is critical in influencing journals to focus on this kind of research. Journals can in turn incentivize such research by prioritizing its publication, adopting impact metrics focused on practitioner uptake, and supporting collaborative efforts through coauthorship opportunities and funding programs. By embracing these strategies, journals can bridge the gap between academic inquiry and practice, advancing research that is both theoretically rigorous and practically impactful.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we challenge the field of I-O psychology to critically rethink its definition of "valuable" research. The current emphasis on novelty, although essential for addressing emergent workplace challenges such as remote work and advancements in AI, risks overshadowing the practical utility of research for practitioners. This focus contributes to a growing scientific–practitioner gap, construct proliferation, and missed opportunities for impactful collaboration. To bridge this divide, we urge journals, academics, and practitioners to collaboratively redefine success metrics for publication by valuing practical relevance, replicability, and applicability alongside theoretical advancements. To this end, we acknowledge recent efforts within the field to address these issues through special journal issues dedicated to replication. These are promising developments that lay the groundwork for a more balanced and impactful research landscape moving forward. Adopting broader peer-review criteria and promoting engaged scholarship can help realign the field with its roots in solving real-world organizational challenges.
